I have received a letter from Carter-Ruck, dated 19 April 2012, which inter alia informs me that,

QUOTE

"...our recorded time costs in relation to the application to commit you for contempt of court are well in excess of £120,000 including Counsel's fees, other disbursements and VAT (where appropriate)".

UNQUOTE

I cannot say any more about the contents of this letter for legal reasons.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

@Tony Bennett wrote:I have received a letter from Carter-Ruck, dated 19 April 2012, which inter alia informs me that,

QUOTE

"...our recorded time costs in relation to the application to commit you for contempt of court are well in excess of £120,000 including Counsel's fees, other disbursements and VAT (where appropriate)".

UNQUOTE

I cannot say any more about the contents of this letter for legal reasons.

Is it usual for the other party's legal team to write to the other person to advise them of their costs? I've just been through a legal battle and I never heard once from the other party's solicitors.

Are they trying to scare you off to settle out of Court, are the McCanns to give evidence in the Court or are CR representing them. If you win the case, the McCanns would have to pay all the costs anyway.

This is blackmail. It is a flagrant attempt to force you to concede.The law Society should look at this.It does however, re-inforce your point about the inequality which exists between the parties.Something the judge may wish to consider ?

@PeterMac wrote:This is blackmail. It is a flagrant attempt to force you to concede.The Law Society should look at this.It does however, re-inforce your point about the inequality which exists between the parties.Something the judge may wish to consider ?

One interesting point is that on the very day that Carter-Ruck posted me this letter, the Law Society came up with a new Practice Note on 'Dealing with Litigants in Person'.

This Practice Note says:

3 Your approach and the SRA Code

Amendments to the Handbook since the introduction of OFR in October 2011 do not impact upon your duties to clients and LiPs. Your duties to act in the best interests of your client, and to the court (see section 4), remain paramount. However, the SRA Code refers to other specific considerations relevant to your dealings with LiPs.

IB 11.7 states that you should not take 'unfair advantage' of an opposing party's lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a solicitor. Further, IB 11.9 states that you should not use your professional status or qualification to take 'unfair advantage' of another individual in order to advance your client's interests.

3.1 Taking 'unfair advantage'

Taking 'unfair advantage' refers to behaviour that any reasonable solicitor would regard as wrong and improper. That might include:

· bullying and unjustifiable threats;

· misleading or deceitful behaviour;

· claiming what cannot be properly claimed;

· demanding what cannotproperly be demanded.

Such conduct is likely to be penalised if identified by a judge or upon complaint.

Conversely, knowing and using law and procedure effectively against your opponent because you have the skills to do so, whether that be as against a qualified representative or an unrepresented LiP, would not in itself be deemed to be either taking 'unfair advantage' or a breach of the SRA Code.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am sure everyone will excuse me if I make no further comment on this thread, except to say that this doesn't I think meet the legal definition of blackmail - but it is certainly a lot of money to silence someone for some articles amd postings on a website amd forum usually seen by no more than 100-200 people a day

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes".

In earlier correspondence between me and Carter-Ruck in this matter, when I raised the subject of this specific quote, Carter-Ruck told me that this didn't apply to bringing committal proceedings against me.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

This threatening behaviour does not surprise me and I agree with an earlier poster that they know the outcome of the case is uncertain.

Is there a system of taxing(appealing) costs. You surely don't need to have someone of partner status monitoring this site with a horrendous chargeout rate? The partners don't need to be doing the massive amount of photocopying needed to create all the stuff delivered to Tony Bennett. Legal costs are often significantly reduced because many firms just try it on, and the costs cannot be justified by any objective criteria.

Would it help if people write to the Law Society querying C-Rs behaviour. The Law Society might be forced to write to C-R if they got lots of letters, if only to inform them that some members of the public feel that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. the Law Society ought to care about that, this case is about free speach.

My son last year had a legal issue which should have been resolved in Small Claims as it was under £5,000. He issued a summons. The defendant instructed a top firm of lawyers and advised my son to drop the case failing which they would elevate the case to a higher court (where costs could be awarded). My son refused to back down. The other side applied for the case to be struck out and before the first court battle issued my son with a list of costs (about £8,000)....The judge said that the case should not be struck out and deferred the issue of costs...failing settlement we moved to a court hearing but the other side applied to have the case elevated from small claims to multi track...at various times they issued us with a list of costs....my son was told that if he went to court and lost and it was in fast track or multi track costs would be around £40,000...It was not a complex case and not just about money but could easily be resolved in court with only two witnessess (not expert)..Small Claims was perfect.

My son was told that the demand of costs prior to a case is a normal tactic but its a scare tactic...he did the case himself but had friends (solictors) to give advice....In the end he did not back down and would have taken the case to court but he reached what he thought was a fair negotiated settlement..

@pauline wrote:This threatening behaviour does not surprise me and I agree with an earlier poster that they know the outcome of the case is uncertain.

Is there a system of taxing(appealing) costs. You surely don't need to have someone of partner status monitoring this site with a horrendous chargeout rate? The partners don't need to be doing the massive amount of photocopying needed to create all the stuff delivered to Tony Bennett. Legal costs are often significantly reduced because many firms just try it on, and the costs cannot be justified by any objective criteria.

Would it help if people write to the Law Society querying C-Rs behaviour. The Law Society might be forced to write to C-R if they got lots of letters, if only to inform them that some members of the public feel that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. the Law Society ought to care about that, this case is about free speach.

I would say that if people wish to complain to the Law Society about CR, they would have to do so of their own accord, on their own initiative.TB cant be asked about this, as he can't possibly answer this without implication for him.

If the complaint has merits the Law Society is obliged to look into it, irrespective whether they received a single or multiples complaint.

@jmac wrote:There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.

I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?

In my case you couldn't be more wrong, as I have huge concern for his plight, but as I'm not a lawyer or wealthy how could I possibly help Tony?

Those who are able to help in any way I would imagine do so privately, as it wouldn't be wise to post advice or suggestions on an open forum.

I am thankful for the little updates Tony provides, and for what it's worth from a layperson, I believe it's normal for both sides to update on costs. It's the sheer amount that I find staggering.

How can they justify those costs? The justice system in this country is abysmal. We have people getting off on technicalities with smartarse lawyers like Mr Loophole (he's trademarked the name) and people like Abu Quatada, who came here illegally, hates the west and preaches poison getting legal aid and probably compensation! What a sad state of affairs.

As far as the Law Society goes not sure if they can help as in my experience 20 odd years ago they didn't help me. Brief summary OH taken to court over a building dispute. He was told by a barrister that the other side's costs were already around £4k and if we continued the case we'd have to pay the judge's costs. Our surveyor advised that we had to put our principles in our pockets. We felt we were definitely in the right, otherwise we wouldn't have gone to court. Our solicitor was useless and the opposition's was a supercilious, snivelling shyster, but he was in a different league to the plonker we had.

We couldn't afford to carry on and capitulated. I've never had faith in justice since and found out that the judge's fees come out of the public purse. That's why I complained to the Law Society, but they didn't want to know. I think they close ranks. Various things happen through life that make you older and wiser!

CR costs are probably so high because of the huge number of 'items' they had and then they had to reduce them to 10 and still came up with 20 odd. If there is any justice the judge will rule that as there is no proof of abduction, why can't anyone put up any other theory. But then what do I know as a non-legal twerp.

@jmac wrote:There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.

I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?

YOU ARE SO WRONG MY FRIEND. Our priorities totally lie behind Tony every single step of the way. We don't need to behave immaturely and dishonestly like the mccans and their cronies...Justice works in silence

@jmac wrote:There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.

I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?

YOU ARE SO WRONG MY FRIEND. Our priorities totally lie behind Tony every single step of the way. We don't need to behave immaturely and dishonestly like the mccans and their cronies...Justice works in silence

An interesting report in today's Irish papers which may give some hope to Tony Bennett re costs.

We have a system of taxing(appealing) legal costs and I presume there's a similar set up in the UK.

The Taxing Master has just reduced claimed costs of €275,000 to €80,000 in a defamation case. In essence the case involved a TV programme in which the state broadcaster claimed that a priest fathered a child while working in Africa. The programme makers refused to let him take a DNA test to prove his innocence and went ahead. Subsequently he took the test which proved he was not the father. There was a large out of court settlement agreed.

the taxing master said, amongst other things, that lawyers must take into account current economic circumstances (which would apply just as much in the UK) when setting fees. Carter Ruck take note!

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Sahlke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.Gerry McCann had met Sahlkebefore he helped with the search but did not show any concern for his death. Link

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 minutes to 45 minutes, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

The 'SunOnline' journalist, Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house, or building equipment."